Most of the ways in which Java is verbose are either pre-1.5 stuff (tons of extra casts, using Iterator for every loop, constructing arrays to pass to functions that need variable argument lists) or library inconveniences (everything in java.lang.reflect takes 6 times as many lines as it ought to; Servlets are misdesigned in such a way as to require a ton of extra stuff). But if you use 1.5, there's no reason you couldn't have a "Java on Rails", that's almost as good. With a good design, all of the verbosity goes into the library, and then the compiler can statically check that things are being done correctly. I do agree, though, that the average Java system is sort of "Java on Sand", and having things streamlined effectively is a huge benefit.
On the other hand, if it's installed before traffic lights or on highway off-ramps, cars will be slowing down anyway. If the energy would otherwise go into the brakes, it's not going to increase gas consumption. The only people who would have a reason to complain would be hybrid drivers with regenerative braking.
They don't mind people reading the book. The reason they came after him was that he was trying to get it from the library. They won't have cared if he'd just bought it from Amazon like a normal person, but he had to try and deprive Chairman Mao's estate of their royalties, and there's no way the Feds can turn a blind eye to that, especially when they're pushing China to crack down on that sort of stuff.
On the other hand, they broke the story when the Patriot Act was up for renewal, which can hardly be a coincidence. Most likely, they held off when they first found out, due to not having enough proof to be sufficiently sure to go against the white house, got further confirmation, and then waited for a time when domestic surveillance would be on people's minds. It's not like the story was time-critical when they found out; it was already 2 years old, and likely to be just as shocking when they decided to break it as it was when they found out.
That is to say, the Britannica piece will undoubtedly say more than the Wikipedia piece.
That's not actually true. Wikipedia's threshold for relevance is lower, so the articles say more, in addition to being less densely written. This is due, to a large extent, because Britannica has to print theirs, so they have pressure to keep things brief, whereas Wikipedia can go into lots of detail. I don't have access to Britannica, but I'm willing to bet that it doesn't explain the Reed-Solomon configuration for error correction on CDs. So chances as that Wikipedia articles have more information in them, although not by as big a factor as the increase in size. Of course, there's no way for us to know at this point the characteristics of the articles that Nature used for this comparison, because they seem to have merged related articles in both cases. For example, most of the content of the Wikipedia "Field Effect Transistor" is in the articles on particular types (MOSFET, JFET, etc.), and the article on Woodward in Britannica must have gotten sections from other articles (e.g., overviews of things he worked on) pulled in if Nature compared versions of remotely similar lengths or scope, since Britannica doesn't break up this topic into articles the same way.
It's not really meaningful to say that the water molecules had potential energy; the system had potential energy as a result of the water molecules being away from the ground, but falling causes that potential energy to become localized in the water. Of course, there's not much else that can happen to gravitational potential energy in the reference frame of the planet, but in the case of charged particles in electric fields, that potential can come out in lots of ways: like moving the particles, moving the device, or causing current to flow in the device. It doesn't make sense to say that the potential energy is in a particular part of the system, when it can become kinetic energy in any of a number of parts depending on how it is released.
I don't know about PHP, but imitating code including unnecessary steps works great in Python. Whenever I want to do something in Python, I start by copying some chenks of vaguely related Python code, and then modify them. I bet those chimps would start with an empty Emacs buffer and try to just write a program from scratch, and they'd have to keep looking up syntax and library calls in the manual all the time.
The books don't really have a Christian message at all, any more than they have an English-speaking message. They weren't written to convert or influence non-Christians, who were a largely-ignored minority (as readers of books in English) at the time. They were meant to teach morality to Christians. The audience is supposed to recognize the references to Christian stories from their upbringing, and take this as support of the actual message, which is that religion isn't nearly so important as morality. It'll be interesting to see if the movies actually get as far as the end of the series, which is an explicit tract against fundamentalism.
Apps designed for the average end user, especially these days, don't work very well. The reason OpenOffice is terrible is that it is trying to compete with MS Office, so it behaves unpredictably and requires a lot of extra effort to use. It's a user interface designed to respond the way OSS developers think that Microsoft users think that Office will respond.
I think an example of a good project is Firefox, which is designed to make the developers happy when they're browsing the web. The developers aren't particularly unusual users, and they browse the web just like normal people, so they are good designers of the interactions. They make the common things easy and the rare things possible, and the average user can guess how to use it, not because it's designed for the end user, but because it's designed to be natural. Possibly an even better example is xpdf, which just straightforwardly displays PDFs.
Woz doesn't seem to blame Apple for the imperfection (he goes on to say that he still really likes what Apple does); I think his point is that Apple's software is big applications, and they're just too complicated to get perfect. The third-party applications he uses are little things that solve a single problem in a simple way. It's not even that Apple doesn't have little things, but the little things Apple provides have to fit into this whole system, and there's a lot for them not to match, and a lot of similar stuff to sort through. If you install a third-party program, you don't have the same expectations of uniformity, you expect it not to be seamlessly integrated, and you know where you put it.
At most of the places I've worked, anyone giving notice would be expected to spend the rest of the time tying up loose ends in their projects. That's the point of requiring notice. Of course, it would be foolish to expect particularly much productivity out of people who are quitting, but you generally want them to hang around so your other employees can grill them on anything that only they really knew well.
They've got patents on the procedures for using it to cure cancer, testing the purity of the preparation you're going to use, generating it efficiently, getting the patient to not kill it before it kills the cancer, and the process of killing cancer with reovirus as a whole.
Bloggers aren't the tech world's new elite. The tech world's old elite just got blogs. All the significant tech blogs are done by people who have been significant for ages and made their names doing real stuff. The thing that's changed is that the tech elite don't need lowly reporters to tell the public things, but can do so directly.
This is true in general. This year, I've been following Jeff Master's excellent blog about the hurricane season. But he's not just some guy who talks about hurricanes; he's got a doctorate in meteorology, he flew planes to measure hurricanes for four years, and he founded one of the best internet sites for weather information. After 9 years of getting my weather reports from his site, I started reading his blog. It's hardly surprising with that career that he'd have posts worth reading. Defining him as a blogger is a bit like defining him as an English speaker. It's clearly true, and clearly significant, but it's not what distinguishes him from everybody else.
If you've got a drag-and-drop standalone ODF/MS converter, it's no problem to convert the document if you don't think you're in a position to boss the recipient around. Ideally, you want to make Office compatibility a feature of your mail client, so that you can have it make Office files when you send a document to someone who can't deal with ODF.
Of course, what I really want to see is a Word macro for reading ODF. That shouldn't really be all that hard, since ODF is easy and Word's macro system obviously works well for generating Word documents.
A small cyclotron is probably no more likely to leak nastiness than a microwave or CRT, and his cyclotron would presumably get inspected on occasion. It's not like it uses hazardous fuel or is self-sustaining. (For that matter, a cyclotron isn't particularly "nuclear"; it accelerates either ions or electrons). If I were his neighbor, I'd be primarily concerned about him overloading the electrical wires in the neighborhood or erasing his guests' credit cards with the big electromagnet.
TFA does say that he's built cyclotrons before, and he doesn't seem to planning to actually do the medical testing himself. On the other hand, I'm not clear whether he intends to have a PET scanner in his dining room, or whether there's a CAT scanner in the area that could be made dual-use. If there's a local hospital that's got the equipment or space to use the tracers he's going to produce, I don't see why he wouldn't install the cyclotron there, rather than trying to get the tracers to the scanner before they decay each time. The University of British Columbia hospital, for example, gets their tracers from a cyclotron a mile and a half away, and they needed to install a pneumatic tube to get them to the hospital in time.
Neither of those cases are documenting code, either. They're documenting why the code works, but letting what the code does speak for itself. They both document why code that doesn't exist doesn't exist, and code that doesn't exist is certainly not self-documenting.
Actually, I don't think either of these should need to be comments here; if Solaris were properly documented, it would be clear that condition variables have to be protected with a mutex, so a semaphore is the intuitive primative for this situation (and the comment does imply that we expect this condition to be signalled in advance of when it will be waited on; something about the data). And the documentation of the set of hooks that remove_card_handle is for ought to tell you that it's called in a single thread and not overlapped with ioctls. Both of these comments are generally good information, and not really particular to the locations you give for them. That's not to say that they should be omitted if you can't change the better place, but in an ideal world...
Unfortunately, good prescriptivists are few and far between. Most prescriptivists primarily advocate rules which aren't actually useful for improving clarity and are generally impossible to follow precisely without writing things that are incomprehensible. This is, of course, because most of the rules which people routinely violate are the ones which aren't intuitively obvious to them as native speakers because they aren't part of the language.
That's not to say there aren't good prescriptivists, except that they tend to be considered simply people with good taste in writing style, and they always hedge their advice, because there's a situation for almost anything that a native speaker would write, read aloud, and not change. Take, for instance George Orwell. About the most important piece of advice I've ever seen about writing, and one many English teachers would do well to understand, is: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous."
Wouldn't stores do better to get the manufacturer to give them the rebate instead of offering it to the customer, and then having a sale? It seems like it would reduce the dollar loss to shrinkage and unsold stock if they saved the rebate amount on these items. (Of course, the manufacturer loses out in these cases, but that's not a reason for retailers to prefer rebates.) I believe that it improves retailers' gross income, but that doesn't seem like something worth improving at the expense of the bottom line.
It actually sounds like the band never wanted the fan recordings removed, and only wanted the soundboard recordings removed. This is in keeping with their traditional policy, where fans were encouraged to record shows and distribute tapes, but the fans had to do the recordings themselves, not just copy the soundboard recording after the show. It seems like the archive site didn't quite understand the request to remove some but not all of someone's material, and also removed the bootlegs, generating a huge backlash before the band got around to correcting things.
But the Dead used to exercise copyright control on their albums and official recordings. It's hard to say what Jerry Garcia would have said about filesharing on the internet with respect to those, but you can bet that he wouldn't have been happy if Sony had started selling copies of Infrared Roses. Copyright isn't about keeping people from making copies. Copyright is about having your policy, whatever it is, matter. That policy can be anything from "give tapes to everybody who will take one" to "give copies to three of your friends" (Magnatune.com) to "don't give it to anybody" (music industry) to "destroy all traces" (private correspondence, often). Having a lenient policy is very different from disavowing copyright; if you disavow copyright on something, probably Sony will take your name off of it, put it on a CD with stuff they own, and make a million times as many CDs of it than you ever will, making sure that nobody who hears it will connect it with you, and anyone who hears you will think that you're covering somebody else. That's what copyright is originally about, and it still somewhat serves that purpose (i.e., they have to get you to give up your rights before they can crush you).
But slandering John Seigenthaler Sr. is a standard part of becoming a respected institution. You'd think he'd be used to it by now. As the Wikipedia article (now) says, during the time when he was claimed to be in Russia, he was actually in the US, being slandered by the FBI. He doesn't seem to have found out who wrote the rumors they recorded (which he himself published and denied), either, but I don't see any outrage at the FBI not revealing their sources.
Good code is self-documenting, unless it relies on some non-obvious property (like code which doesn't need a failure case because the four-color conjecture turns out to be true, or code that computes the min cut of a graph by actually computing the max flow). But data is not at all self-documenting: the meaning of variables, particularly globals or function arguments, and the meaning of particular values they can have, is clear only by studying a potentially large amount of code that's somewhere else. Therefore, it needs a comment that explains how it works and any rules that it follows.
Similarly, function declarations need comments, because the detailed documentation in code is not in the same file, and often too long to use as reference.
It looks to me like a duplicate of a long-standing Mozilla issue where Firefox stops responding any time you give it a very large amount of text. If you simply have a 48M text file, it'll freeze the interface for a minute before responding to clicks or redrawing the screen or anything. This mostly happens if something thinks that a large binary file is text (either Firefox or a web server serving the file). I don't see why it would be any different for a large amount of text generated by a script in a dialog box.
That's so that, when a dupe of this is posted next week, everybody who gets the stable release of Firefox 1.5 when it comes out will have something new to see in the article.
That money goes straight to Texas, and all of it goes to Texas, because they're additionally suing for legal fees and court costs. Still nothing in particular in it for the consumers at the end, of course, but getting money to consumers is impractical, anyway. The only practical thing is to reward states for passing laws that let them get money out of corporations.
I'm surprised that they're now backing Sony's original position, after Sony abandoned it. Sony now seems to think that what they did was really bad; bad enough that they're not trying to fix the reported flaws, but giving up on protecting this particular music at all for now. I'd expect the RIAA to say nothing about this, like they usually do when record companies get in trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
smaller and thus easier to comprehend than Java
Most of the ways in which Java is verbose are either pre-1.5 stuff (tons of extra casts, using Iterator for every loop, constructing arrays to pass to functions that need variable argument lists) or library inconveniences (everything in java.lang.reflect takes 6 times as many lines as it ought to; Servlets are misdesigned in such a way as to require a ton of extra stuff). But if you use 1.5, there's no reason you couldn't have a "Java on Rails", that's almost as good. With a good design, all of the verbosity goes into the library, and then the compiler can statically check that things are being done correctly. I do agree, though, that the average Java system is sort of "Java on Sand", and having things streamlined effectively is a huge benefit.
On the other hand, if it's installed before traffic lights or on highway off-ramps, cars will be slowing down anyway. If the energy would otherwise go into the brakes, it's not going to increase gas consumption. The only people who would have a reason to complain would be hybrid drivers with regenerative braking.
They don't mind people reading the book. The reason they came after him was that he was trying to get it from the library. They won't have cared if he'd just bought it from Amazon like a normal person, but he had to try and deprive Chairman Mao's estate of their royalties, and there's no way the Feds can turn a blind eye to that, especially when they're pushing China to crack down on that sort of stuff.
On the other hand, they broke the story when the Patriot Act was up for renewal, which can hardly be a coincidence. Most likely, they held off when they first found out, due to not having enough proof to be sufficiently sure to go against the white house, got further confirmation, and then waited for a time when domestic surveillance would be on people's minds. It's not like the story was time-critical when they found out; it was already 2 years old, and likely to be just as shocking when they decided to break it as it was when they found out.
That is to say, the Britannica piece will undoubtedly say more than the Wikipedia piece.
That's not actually true. Wikipedia's threshold for relevance is lower, so the articles say more, in addition to being less densely written. This is due, to a large extent, because Britannica has to print theirs, so they have pressure to keep things brief, whereas Wikipedia can go into lots of detail. I don't have access to Britannica, but I'm willing to bet that it doesn't explain the Reed-Solomon configuration for error correction on CDs. So chances as that Wikipedia articles have more information in them, although not by as big a factor as the increase in size. Of course, there's no way for us to know at this point the characteristics of the articles that Nature used for this comparison, because they seem to have merged related articles in both cases. For example, most of the content of the Wikipedia "Field Effect Transistor" is in the articles on particular types (MOSFET, JFET, etc.), and the article on Woodward in Britannica must have gotten sections from other articles (e.g., overviews of things he worked on) pulled in if Nature compared versions of remotely similar lengths or scope, since Britannica doesn't break up this topic into articles the same way.
It's not really meaningful to say that the water molecules had potential energy; the system had potential energy as a result of the water molecules being away from the ground, but falling causes that potential energy to become localized in the water. Of course, there's not much else that can happen to gravitational potential energy in the reference frame of the planet, but in the case of charged particles in electric fields, that potential can come out in lots of ways: like moving the particles, moving the device, or causing current to flow in the device. It doesn't make sense to say that the potential energy is in a particular part of the system, when it can become kinetic energy in any of a number of parts depending on how it is released.
I don't know about PHP, but imitating code including unnecessary steps works great in Python. Whenever I want to do something in Python, I start by copying some chenks of vaguely related Python code, and then modify them. I bet those chimps would start with an empty Emacs buffer and try to just write a program from scratch, and they'd have to keep looking up syntax and library calls in the manual all the time.
The books don't really have a Christian message at all, any more than they have an English-speaking message. They weren't written to convert or influence non-Christians, who were a largely-ignored minority (as readers of books in English) at the time. They were meant to teach morality to Christians. The audience is supposed to recognize the references to Christian stories from their upbringing, and take this as support of the actual message, which is that religion isn't nearly so important as morality. It'll be interesting to see if the movies actually get as far as the end of the series, which is an explicit tract against fundamentalism.
Apps designed for the average end user, especially these days, don't work very well. The reason OpenOffice is terrible is that it is trying to compete with MS Office, so it behaves unpredictably and requires a lot of extra effort to use. It's a user interface designed to respond the way OSS developers think that Microsoft users think that Office will respond.
I think an example of a good project is Firefox, which is designed to make the developers happy when they're browsing the web. The developers aren't particularly unusual users, and they browse the web just like normal people, so they are good designers of the interactions. They make the common things easy and the rare things possible, and the average user can guess how to use it, not because it's designed for the end user, but because it's designed to be natural. Possibly an even better example is xpdf, which just straightforwardly displays PDFs.
Woz doesn't seem to blame Apple for the imperfection (he goes on to say that he still really likes what Apple does); I think his point is that Apple's software is big applications, and they're just too complicated to get perfect. The third-party applications he uses are little things that solve a single problem in a simple way. It's not even that Apple doesn't have little things, but the little things Apple provides have to fit into this whole system, and there's a lot for them not to match, and a lot of similar stuff to sort through. If you install a third-party program, you don't have the same expectations of uniformity, you expect it not to be seamlessly integrated, and you know where you put it.
At most of the places I've worked, anyone giving notice would be expected to spend the rest of the time tying up loose ends in their projects. That's the point of requiring notice. Of course, it would be foolish to expect particularly much productivity out of people who are quitting, but you generally want them to hang around so your other employees can grill them on anything that only they really knew well.
They've got patents on the procedures for using it to cure cancer, testing the purity of the preparation you're going to use, generating it efficiently, getting the patient to not kill it before it kills the cancer, and the process of killing cancer with reovirus as a whole.
Bloggers aren't the tech world's new elite. The tech world's old elite just got blogs. All the significant tech blogs are done by people who have been significant for ages and made their names doing real stuff. The thing that's changed is that the tech elite don't need lowly reporters to tell the public things, but can do so directly.
This is true in general. This year, I've been following Jeff Master's excellent blog about the hurricane season. But he's not just some guy who talks about hurricanes; he's got a doctorate in meteorology, he flew planes to measure hurricanes for four years, and he founded one of the best internet sites for weather information. After 9 years of getting my weather reports from his site, I started reading his blog. It's hardly surprising with that career that he'd have posts worth reading. Defining him as a blogger is a bit like defining him as an English speaker. It's clearly true, and clearly significant, but it's not what distinguishes him from everybody else.
If you've got a drag-and-drop standalone ODF/MS converter, it's no problem to convert the document if you don't think you're in a position to boss the recipient around. Ideally, you want to make Office compatibility a feature of your mail client, so that you can have it make Office files when you send a document to someone who can't deal with ODF.
Of course, what I really want to see is a Word macro for reading ODF. That shouldn't really be all that hard, since ODF is easy and Word's macro system obviously works well for generating Word documents.
A small cyclotron is probably no more likely to leak nastiness than a microwave or CRT, and his cyclotron would presumably get inspected on occasion. It's not like it uses hazardous fuel or is self-sustaining. (For that matter, a cyclotron isn't particularly "nuclear"; it accelerates either ions or electrons). If I were his neighbor, I'd be primarily concerned about him overloading the electrical wires in the neighborhood or erasing his guests' credit cards with the big electromagnet.
TFA does say that he's built cyclotrons before, and he doesn't seem to planning to actually do the medical testing himself. On the other hand, I'm not clear whether he intends to have a PET scanner in his dining room, or whether there's a CAT scanner in the area that could be made dual-use. If there's a local hospital that's got the equipment or space to use the tracers he's going to produce, I don't see why he wouldn't install the cyclotron there, rather than trying to get the tracers to the scanner before they decay each time. The University of British Columbia hospital, for example, gets their tracers from a cyclotron a mile and a half away, and they needed to install a pneumatic tube to get them to the hospital in time.
Neither of those cases are documenting code, either. They're documenting why the code works, but letting what the code does speak for itself. They both document why code that doesn't exist doesn't exist, and code that doesn't exist is certainly not self-documenting.
Actually, I don't think either of these should need to be comments here; if Solaris were properly documented, it would be clear that condition variables have to be protected with a mutex, so a semaphore is the intuitive primative for this situation (and the comment does imply that we expect this condition to be signalled in advance of when it will be waited on; something about the data). And the documentation of the set of hooks that remove_card_handle is for ought to tell you that it's called in a single thread and not overlapped with ioctls. Both of these comments are generally good information, and not really particular to the locations you give for them. That's not to say that they should be omitted if you can't change the better place, but in an ideal world...
That is what all good prescriptivists advocate.
Unfortunately, good prescriptivists are few and far between. Most prescriptivists primarily advocate rules which aren't actually useful for improving clarity and are generally impossible to follow precisely without writing things that are incomprehensible. This is, of course, because most of the rules which people routinely violate are the ones which aren't intuitively obvious to them as native speakers because they aren't part of the language.
That's not to say there aren't good prescriptivists, except that they tend to be considered simply people with good taste in writing style, and they always hedge their advice, because there's a situation for almost anything that a native speaker would write, read aloud, and not change. Take, for instance George Orwell. About the most important piece of advice I've ever seen about writing, and one many English teachers would do well to understand, is: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous."
Wouldn't stores do better to get the manufacturer to give them the rebate instead of offering it to the customer, and then having a sale? It seems like it would reduce the dollar loss to shrinkage and unsold stock if they saved the rebate amount on these items. (Of course, the manufacturer loses out in these cases, but that's not a reason for retailers to prefer rebates.) I believe that it improves retailers' gross income, but that doesn't seem like something worth improving at the expense of the bottom line.
It actually sounds like the band never wanted the fan recordings removed, and only wanted the soundboard recordings removed. This is in keeping with their traditional policy, where fans were encouraged to record shows and distribute tapes, but the fans had to do the recordings themselves, not just copy the soundboard recording after the show. It seems like the archive site didn't quite understand the request to remove some but not all of someone's material, and also removed the bootlegs, generating a huge backlash before the band got around to correcting things.
But the Dead used to exercise copyright control on their albums and official recordings. It's hard to say what Jerry Garcia would have said about filesharing on the internet with respect to those, but you can bet that he wouldn't have been happy if Sony had started selling copies of Infrared Roses. Copyright isn't about keeping people from making copies. Copyright is about having your policy, whatever it is, matter. That policy can be anything from "give tapes to everybody who will take one" to "give copies to three of your friends" (Magnatune.com) to "don't give it to anybody" (music industry) to "destroy all traces" (private correspondence, often). Having a lenient policy is very different from disavowing copyright; if you disavow copyright on something, probably Sony will take your name off of it, put it on a CD with stuff they own, and make a million times as many CDs of it than you ever will, making sure that nobody who hears it will connect it with you, and anyone who hears you will think that you're covering somebody else. That's what copyright is originally about, and it still somewhat serves that purpose (i.e., they have to get you to give up your rights before they can crush you).
But slandering John Seigenthaler Sr. is a standard part of becoming a respected institution. You'd think he'd be used to it by now. As the Wikipedia article (now) says, during the time when he was claimed to be in Russia, he was actually in the US, being slandered by the FBI. He doesn't seem to have found out who wrote the rumors they recorded (which he himself published and denied), either, but I don't see any outrage at the FBI not revealing their sources.
Good code is self-documenting, unless it relies on some non-obvious property (like code which doesn't need a failure case because the four-color conjecture turns out to be true, or code that computes the min cut of a graph by actually computing the max flow). But data is not at all self-documenting: the meaning of variables, particularly globals or function arguments, and the meaning of particular values they can have, is clear only by studying a potentially large amount of code that's somewhere else. Therefore, it needs a comment that explains how it works and any rules that it follows.
Similarly, function declarations need comments, because the detailed documentation in code is not in the same file, and often too long to use as reference.
It looks to me like a duplicate of a long-standing Mozilla issue where Firefox stops responding any time you give it a very large amount of text. If you simply have a 48M text file, it'll freeze the interface for a minute before responding to clicks or redrawing the screen or anything. This mostly happens if something thinks that a large binary file is text (either Firefox or a web server serving the file). I don't see why it would be any different for a large amount of text generated by a script in a dialog box.
That's so that, when a dupe of this is posted next week, everybody who gets the stable release of Firefox 1.5 when it comes out will have something new to see in the article.
That money goes straight to Texas, and all of it goes to Texas, because they're additionally suing for legal fees and court costs. Still nothing in particular in it for the consumers at the end, of course, but getting money to consumers is impractical, anyway. The only practical thing is to reward states for passing laws that let them get money out of corporations.
I'm surprised that they're now backing Sony's original position, after Sony abandoned it. Sony now seems to think that what they did was really bad; bad enough that they're not trying to fix the reported flaws, but giving up on protecting this particular music at all for now. I'd expect the RIAA to say nothing about this, like they usually do when record companies get in trouble.